What's the Tea in L&E? Supervisor Liability: What Managers Need To Know
What's the Tea in L&E? One Time Too Many: What is “Severe” Conduct?
What's the Tea in L&E? Truth Hurts or Rumors? Lizzo’s Harassment Allegations Serve As A Good Reminder
Bystander Responsibility in the Era of #MeToo: Lessons Learned From Apple TV’s The Morning Show - Hiring to Firing Podcast
Constangy Webinar - DEI Audits: Tools to Enhance Your DEI Practices
#WorkforceWednesday: Judge Barrett’s Employment Law Record, Arbitrator to Rule on Postmates’ Challenge, Responding to Frivolous Lawsuits - Employment Law This Week®
[WEBINAR] Labor & Employment Law: What Changed in 2017
Episode 37: How To Provide Meaningful Employment Training (…and Also Comply With NYC Law)
Employment Law This Week®: Workplace Harassment Review in Federal Courts, DOL Opinion Letters, NLRB Nomination, ICE Raids
This Week in FCPA-Episode 74
Part 1 of 2: My Sit-Down Interview With Former EEOC General Counsel David Lopez
Employment Law This Week: U.S. Supreme Court Nominee, California’s Anti-Harassment Regulations, Oregon’s Minimum Wage, Whistleblower Legislation
AB1825 Training and Anti-Harassment and Discrimination Training
Waldman: Stop Immunizing Websites That Allow Harassment
Stefan Hankin on Online Harassment
Polsinelli Podcasts - Workplace Bullying: What Employers Need to Know
Annual Labor & Employment Update 2013
Seyfarth Synopsis: On January 15, 2020, in Guzman v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., No. 17-CV-02606-HSG, 2020 WL 227567 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 2020), Judge Haywood Gilliam of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of...more
SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN THE WORKPLACE: WHAT US: MULTI-STATE COMPANIES NEED TO KNOW - We include the 2018 chapter in its entirety for reference following the 2019 update. 2019 Update - In the wake the of the #MeToo...more
2019 Update - The #MeToo movement, which has grown international in scope, is a wide-ranging campaign to shed light on the occurrence of sexual assault and harassment, particularly in the workplace. The movement began in...more
Hospital Supervisors Refused Accommodation for Deaf Employee, Federal Agency Charges - SANTA FE, N.M. - Christus Health, doing business as Christus St. Vincent Regional Medical Center in Santa Fe, N.M., violated federal...more
Under Title VII, employers are generally strictly liable for harassing conduct by supervisors. In its Faragher and Ellerth decisions, the U.S. Supreme Court developed a limited defense for employers accused of supervisor...more
As all hospitality employers know, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of “sex.” However, the statute does not specifically mention sexual orientation or gender identity. What does...more
Most hostile environment harassment claims brought under Title VII involve allegations of offensive conduct by the plaintiff’s supervisors or co-workers. In a few situations, the employee alleges that his or her subordinates...more
Looking back at the recently-completed 2012-2013 Supreme Court term, employers should have reason to feel good about how things turned out. In fact, of the six major decisions that impact employers and can be categorized in...more
The United States Supreme Court’s decision in Vance v. Ball State just made it easier for employers to defend against some Title VII harassment lawsuits. In a 5-4 decision, the Court rejected the harassment claims brought by...more
U.S. Supreme Court Decisions - Court Limits Definition of “Supervisor” Under Federal Anti-Discrimination Law - In Vance v. Ball State University (June 24, 2013), in a 5-4 decision, a majority of the Supreme...more
The Potential Implications for Educational Institutions - Last month, at the close of its October 2012 term, the Supreme Court issued two important rulings in Title VII employment discrimination cases that make it...more
In This Issue: - Supreme Court Issues Two Key Title VII Rulings - Ogletree Deakins Launches New Fall Seminar - Are Your HIPAA Privacy Policies Up To Date - OFCCP Clarifies Damages For Victims Of Bias - The...more
By the end of this year’s term, the United States Supreme Court had issued three “employer-friendly” decisions. While the decisions do not dramatically alter the employment law landscape, employers will still welcome the...more
On June 24, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down two critical decisions regarding Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which improve an employer’s ability to defend against employee claims of harassment and retaliation. ...more
On June 24, the Supreme Court issued two new opinions in favor of employers, both five-to-four decisions that narrowly construe the scope of Title VII’s retaliation and employer liability rules and significantly raise the bar...more
In another favorable ruling for employers, the Supreme Court in University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar clarified that employees must satisfy a higher “but for” standard of proof to prevail in a Title VII...more
As the United States Supreme Court’s 2012-2013 term drew to a close at the end of June, commentators observed a continuing gradual but perceptible shift to the right by the Court. The Roberts Court is generally viewed as...more
Employer strictly liable for supervisor’s harassment of employee only if supervisor has hire and fire authority over subordinates - In a favorable decision for employers, the U.S. Supreme Court in Vance v. Ball State...more
In a favorable decision for employers, the U.S. Supreme Court in Vance v. Ball State University ruled that employers are strictly liable for harassment by a supervisor where the supervisor is empowered to take tangible...more
On June 24, 2013, the United States Supreme Court issued two employer-friendly opinions that substantially narrow potential liability for claims of supervisor misconduct and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act...more
Employee Must Prove That Illegal Retaliation Was The "But For" Cause Of Adverse Job Action Under Title VII - University of Tex. S.W. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 570 U.S. ___, 2013 WL 3155234 (2013) - The United States...more
On Monday, we blogged about the first of two recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions interpreting Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar. Today, we’ll...more
On June 24, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court issued opinions in two cases which are clear victories for employers. First, in Vance v. Ball State University, the Supreme Court held that “an employer may be vicariously liable for...more
The United States Supreme Court recently delivered a “win” for employers in Vance v. Ball State University, 570 U.S. __ (June 24, 2013) in which the Court narrowed the definition of supervisor for purposes of employer...more
Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court issued two decisions that will make it more difficult for employees to pursue various employment claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964....more